downtonabbeyfandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:CestWhat
Welcome Hi, welcome to Downton Abbey Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Marmaduke Painswick page. If you need help, and there are no local admins here, you may want to visit the forums on the Community Central Wiki. Looking for live help? Then join us for an upcoming webinar to chat with staff and other Wikia editors. You can also check our Staff blog to keep up-to-date with the latest news and events around Wikia. Happy editing, LexiLexi (help forum | blog) Sybil's age Hi there CestWhat. I was wondering about your recent edit regarding Sybil Crawley's birth year. Did it say somewhere that she was born in 1897? I listed her birth date as 1896 because in the last episode of the first season Robert says that Cora hasn't been pregnant for 18 years and 1914-18=1896. Did you hear somewhere that it was 1897? If so, we may have conflicting sources. -- 21:52, March 5, 2012 (UTC) :I suppose so. At any rate, your source is from a more recent episode, so I'd say it would take precedence over my source if they conflict. Apparently the subject of the girls' exact ages is a hot debate. -- 19:22, March 6, 2012 (UTC) Adopt this wiki Have you considered adopting this wiki? You seem active, dedicated, and knowledgeable. -- Fandyllic (talk · ) 9 Mar 2012 8:32 AM Pacific :Are you worried about the responsibility? Admin at too many other wikis? -- Fandyllic (talk · ) 15 Mar 2012 9:12 PM Pacific : Matthew and the second Earl of Grantham Maybe, if you paid more attention to the show, then you would realise that Matthew IS descended from the 2nd Earl of Grantham; Violet states that Matthew is Robert's third cousin, once removed, and that she has never set eyes on him. Using that line, as well as the line that Reginald is Robert's cousin ("It's funny that my third cousin should be a doctor") we can safely make that link. To prove me right, you wrong and all of your edits - which HAVE been undone - pointless, I made the image below in paint As well as this, Robert has no other aunts except for Roberta, so the "aunt discovered in 1860" (as stated by Edith) must be Roberta, which then links onto Susan (who is Violet's niece and Roberta's child) making Rose Roberta's granddaughter; as well as this, Violet may NOT know her own family; Roberta fought in Lucknow which is in Uttar Pradesh; no information in the show contradicts the information that says she married in 1860 (and most likely in Uttar Pradesh), then came back to England for 1868 for Violet's wedding (Violet says that Susan has been to Downton at least once, so this must have been WHEN she was there) Please do not ruin perfectly good pages, which were barely able to be restored to their former selves, by removing information without having first watched the show. Thank you --HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:35, September 1, 2012 (UTC) Matthew's descent from 2nd Earl If he was descended from the FIRST EARL'S young son, then his father would be Robert's FOURTH COUSIN, not THIRD; The ONLY POSSIBLE WAY that Matthew and Robert can be related is through the SECOND EARL, SO PLEASE, FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS SANE AND HOLY IN THE WORLD OF DOWNTON, STOP REMOVING THAT INFORMATION! IT IS WELL KNOW THROUGH COUSIN CHARTS THAT IT IS THE WAY THEY ARE RELATED. Change it again, and I shall be reporting you. Thank youHarryPotterRules1 (talk) 04:35, September 2, 2012 (UTC) YOU ARE STILL NOT LISTENING! ROBERT STATES THAT REGINALD IS HIS THIRD COUSIN! THIS MEANS THAT HE AND MATTHEW ARE DESCENDED FROM THE SECOND EARL! IF THEY WERE DESCENDED FROM ANY OTHER EARL THEN REGINALD WOULD NOT BE ROBERT'S THIRD COUSIN - YOU HAVE HAD MORE THAN ENOUGH EVIDENCE, SO PLEASE, STOP CHANGING THIS PAGE!HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 04:48, September 2, 2012 (UTC) Actually, CestWhat, that family tree does make perfect sense. Robert is the great-great-great grandson of the 1st Earl; the great-great grandson of the 2nd Earl; the great grandson of the 3rd Earl; the grandson of the 4th Earl; and the son of the 5th Earl. If Robert and Reginald are third cousins, then they are the great-great grandsons of the 2nd Earl; Robert through the elder son, Reginald through the younger son. Matthew, as Reginald's son, is the great-great-great grandson of the 2nd Earl through his younger son, and Robert's daughters have the same relationship to the 2nd Earl through their father, so Matthew and the girls are fourth cousins. Since the 2nd Earl is Robert's great-great grandfather, '''but Matthew's '''great-great-great grandfather, Robert and Matthew are third cousins once removed. Rosamund's Children The press pack for Series 1 states that Rosamund has two children, Lavinia - married to a landed colonel in the Grenadiers - and Cyril - who is doing something slightly nefarious in the far east. Given that a press pack confirms it, that makes it canon; the fate of the children is, most likely, death, since Rosamund has NO children in Series 3, so they either a) died during WWI (possible, and very probable in the case of Cyril and Lavinia's husband) b) died of the Spanish Flu in 1919, or c) suffered some other fate and died. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 03:51, September 3, 2012 (UTC) Alfred Molesley Name Hello CestWhat, I have just got your message regarding Alfred Molesley name. In the The Chronicles of Downton Abbey - A New Era novel, written by Jessica Followes and Foreword by Julian Fellowes, which I have copy off the book which as just been relased in the UK,. In the The Chronicles of Downton Abbey - A New Era novel and the website source I previously found reads in the Series 3 cast list as Kevin Doyle - Alfred Molesley, user:Hogwartsgirl 'Alfred Molesley Name' Hello CestWhat, I have just got your message regarding Alfred Molesley name. In the The Chronicles of Downton Abbey - A New Era novel, written by Jessica Followes and Foreword by Julian Fellowes, which I have copy off the book which as just been relased in the UK,. In the The Chronicles of Downton Abbey - A New Era novel and the website source I previously found reads in the Series 3 cast list as Kevin Doyle - Alfred Molesley, user:Hogwartsgirl Matthew's descent from Second Earl of Grantham. As I proved, AGES AGO, Matthew IS descended from the Second Earl of Grantham; he confirmed it to Martha in Episode 3.01; he says that his great-great-grandfather is the younger brother of the Third Earl, thus, proving me right. I WILL'' be expecting an apology for your removal of KNOWN AND CONFIRMED INFORMATION from the Second Earl of Grantham page, and I ''WILL ''be expecting an apology for you being wrong ''TO ME. That is allHarryPotterRules1 (talk) 21:08, September 16, 2012 (UTC) Re: Admin Maybe. You do seem like a logical choice for the position, having made a lot of edits lately, and this wiki has been without an admin for a while. Just curious though, what would you like adminship for? What would you do with it once you got it? -- 14:47, September 21, 2012 (UTC) :It would definitely be nice to see this place become a livelier and more active community. Remember though, that at the end of the day, being a wiki-admin is like being a glorified janitor: just a regular user with a few extra buttons to push; i.e. the ability to delete pages, protect pages, revert vandalism and block users. I've seen some pages hit by vandals on here before and it's really bad when actions like that go unnoticed. -- 18:33, September 21, 2012 (UTC) ::I'm hoping that we can do a forum soon, since that appears to be the only way to resolve it. If you're offering now, I'd certainly like to hear the reasoning behind your side. -- 03:06, September 22, 2012 (UTC) :::Yes, you have a point regarding all of this. Regarding canon information, we should go with what's confirmed, not speculation about what's likely. Even though we don't have any rules or policies about that, it's what most wikis do for issues like Martha's age, the exact position of the Earls of Grantham on the family tree and how from when to when Violet ran Downton Abbey. Although for the last one, while I concede we don't know the exact years, I think we can take 30 itself as an exact number in the absence of any other given number. :::As for Rosamund's children, I also agree with you on that. The sources contradicted one another, so we should go with the more recent one. Saying they died of something specific like Spanish Flu is speculative. Right now I'm inclined to think you should be admin, since you've been level-headed thusfar. I set up a forum so everyone who wants to give input on here can do so, and so it's "official." Unless it's done in a way that's fair for everyone, Community Central isn't going to act on the request yet. So I figured you and HPR should each get a chance to make your case (you can copy-paste some of what you said before if you want) and everyone else can vote. -- 06:35, September 24, 2012 (UTC) RE:Kemal Hello, there! Really? Could you please check again? -- My ITV recording shows no such caption at the start of episode 1.02, and I don't think I'm entirely sure how to conciliate a date of (after) March 1913 with the Albanian talks but here's my best shot: *The conference in London began on 16 December 1912 and effectively ceased on 23 January 1913, when there was a coup d'état in the Ottoman Empire. If Pamuk was at Downton after March, he'd be quite a few months late to the talks. A possible explanation is that Pamuk was there not because of the conference, per se, but because of the Treaty of London, formalising the decision to establish the Principality of Albania as an independent sovereign state. The Treaty of London was signed on 30 May 1913 (although Albania was only recognised by the Great Powers in July of that year). *Cora does say that "Turkey's signature is vital" hinting that Pamuk was, indeed, there for the Treaty. Robert does also say that Pamuk was vital to the peace in Albania and, there you are, the Treat of London effectively put an end to the First Balkan War. Shall we add to the article, then, that Pamuk died in the Spring (March, April or May) of 1913? -- [[User:Seth Cooper| Seth Cooper ]][[User talk:Seth Cooper| telegram me!]] 21:24, September 27, 2012 (UTC) Robert and Cora's Son Yes, I know it was a miscarriage, but the simple fact of his existence, even if only for a brief time, warrants noting it, don't you think? Dragonrider2 (talk) 00:11, October 21, 2012 (UTC) The Dates that Susan visited Downton I wrote 1889 as the earliest she could have visited because Cora and Robert were married in 1889; Cora does not say that she doesn't know Susan, and even tells Carson that "Lady Flintshire is his Lordship's cousin"; this makes it, WITHOUT A DOUBT, that 1889 was the EARLIEST that she could have visited (or at least, on the occasion that Violet it talking about) which is why her page says (b. before 1889). Ok? As you can see, I have provided VALID references, USING THE SHOW and KNOWN press pack information, so do not remove CANON information please, or we'll end up in another blistening argument, which I don't want. I'm only being civil to your from the previous argument at the moment because I'm fed up of arguing and because NEITHER of us will be Admin if I don't: I don't want to start ANOTHER argument, but if I HAVE TO to prove that I am right (on this occasion) then I will. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:51, October 25, 2012 (UTC) Time to play I wanted to make sure you had seen the "time to play" blog, it would be really great if this wiki were involved. Check out the blog and let me know what you guys think! http://downtonabbey.wikia.com/wiki/User_blog:Xean/It%27s_Time_To_Play Sena 02:33, October 31, 2012 (UTC) :If you do choose an article, and would like to be involved, just leave me a note telling me which article you'd like to feature and we'll take it from there. Sena 15:33, October 31, 2012 (UTC) ::CestWhat is not an admin, however could start a discussion on identifying an article for inclusion in this promotion. -- Fandyllic (talk · ) 1 Nov 2012 1:50 PM Pacific Removing content and apologies Despite your position that is often correct about canon, citations, and references, you can't just continue removing content with the expectation that you are held to a different standard. Even speculation has its place. Some conclusions added to articles, while poorly or not fully supported, still add valuable info for a reader and contain interesting deductions from material that does not have good canon sources. Take this as a warning. You and HarryPotterRules1 are making me do way more work on this wiki than I want to do, since the stubbornness of you both is intractable. I've asked HarryPotterRules1 to apologize first, but I also expect a followup apology from you with assurances that you will do a much better job of preserving content and moving it to sections that better identify their speculative nature rather than rough-shod removal. If HarryPotterRules1 makes an apology (odds not clear), the ball will be in your court. -- Fandyllic (talk · ) 1 Nov 2012 1:56 PM Pacific :Once I have received my apology - since it was you constantly removing information that had been discussed (and agreed that the written content was the best way to word it since the show had given no ABSOLUTE dates, only dates we could infer) - then I shall apologise, as you started it weeks ago: it was only over being frustrated and rather f***ed off with you that made me threaten you. Since YOU started removing the information - which annoyed me and made me write the threat - that means YOU should apologise first. I am willing to apologise, but only if you do - as I have explained above that it was your fault in the first place - first. That is the last - and currently only - compromise I am willing to make. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:37, November 1, 2012 (UTC) ::I get that User:Fandyllic didn't request, but asked to be an admin (although User:Fandyllic didn't have to accept, but happy it happened). ::Obviously I'm not the perfect contributor as nobody can be, but I disagree with some of what User:Fandyllic and others like User:Seth_Cooper written about me. That I'm over zealous in sticking just to dialogue in the episodes and not understanding that some speculation and inference is not only necessary, but helpful to other readers. Also that I don't explain why I've removed the information or ask how User:HPR1's reasoning behind his edits. ::I'd like to again point out that this isn't a grand philosophy on this Wikia or for every single article, but very specific issue (think there not even ten pages that this effects). I get style is far from objective i.e. if we arguing over which was the best quote to lead off the article for Mrs. Hughes or something like that. The stuff I'm disagreeing about for months now isn't even subjective and pretty clearly back and white. ::I'd point out again that I've had disagreement with other contributors over edits and no complaints from them about it, just User:HPR1 (who I would not has had complaints from contributors other then myself). ::The idea that I'm over zealous and unwilling to look at context in information not implicitly in the dialogue is incorrect i.e. Reginald Crawley's death date which I've never changed. I didn't change Cora's year of birth as 1868 even though the source is that is Series One press pack which has her as 20 in July 1888 (meaning she could have been born in December 1867. Another being that Fräulein Kelder being German. Never stated in the show, but from the use of Fräulein and her surname and that in his novel Snobs, Julian Fellowes made a joke about German governesses, I get that. I've never mentioned that in the official book by Jessica Fellowes, Robert is written as the 7th Earl of Grantham and not the 6th Earl (source: http://goo.gl/VCXqk) since it's an outlayer to everything else (although Robert is never once called the 6th Earl at any time in the actual show). Heck, all Violet actually said that "remember your Great Aunt Roberta" to her granddaughter which could be her husband's sister or her brother's wife, but I didn't take it out or even make an issue of it. I could list more and more. ::One is how totally flimsy and not even correct inference of the source dialogue is from these leaps (i.e. Robert saying "Sir Anthony Strallan is at least my age" as meaning they are the same exact age). ::Also not ever edit I've removed was speculation, but pointing out the obvious (i.e. Mrs. Branson where Branson was born in 1890, would ANY reasonable person reading that article need to be told that a person's mother was born before that person). ::Other are just so vague as to be unhelp to anybody i.e. Violet being born over a twenty year period isn't something that anybody could guess at and it's wrong since she could be born in 1839. ::The way they were written seem to imply information that not only wasn't proven, but more then likely wrong (i.e. that aunt who married a Gordon in the 1860's also being Great Aunt Roberta or which year Robert was born). A combo of speculative, not even having the correct dialogue to back it up and lacking common sense to be right seems like a good reason to take it. ::With Patrick as the 5th Earl's first name or his mother being a Countess, there isn't anything to suggest it. With 5th Earl's mother being a Countess, her living at Crawley House rather then the Dower House always seem to imply to me that she wasn't a Countess herself. I mention this to point out that I didn't put that in despite the accusation that I act as if I'm the sole authority on D.A. Another example would be that I read an interview with Gareth Neame, executive producer of Downton Abbey, where he said something along the lines that the show plays loose with the ages of the characters since they don't age even as the years go by. I didn't mention it because I couldn't remember the URL for it. I don't expect people to believe me on a "I just know" basis. ::The idea that I take these off this stuff without ever explaining or asking how User:HarryPotterRules1 got them is untrue. Look at my talk page, User:HPR1's talk page and the edit history where the edit notes are. It's filled with User:HPR1 not even denying that the info in question is speculative and then ignoring the implication of that. And this was a real turning out. After the Series Three premiered, I got a message telling me that Matthew had said that his great-great grandfather was the younger son of the 2nd Earl. I never said he wasn't, just that nothing so far had backed it up. Then actually watched the episode and saw that wasn't even correct. It was a bit troubling to deal with somebody who lied and then said the show was wrong because it disprove their own speculation. Maybe I got more dismissive of User:HPR1 after that, but c'mon, anybody reasonable would. Then I got threaten and User:HPR1 was pround and boastful about well it worked. ::After all that, I'm not disagreeing with User:Fandyllic's request though I am disagreeing with the reason against me. If you like to me to apologize to User:HPR1 after User:HPR1's apology to me, that's fine. I do wish that User:Fandyllic and others would engage more with the case I'm making for why I make these edits then "you are both equally right and both equally wrong" although as I type that, I'm putting words into people's mouth they never actually typed. CestWhat (talk) 00:01, November 2, 2012 (UTC) ::Note - if Robert *IS* the seventh earl, then it makes Matthew's line of being descended from the 3rd earl wrong (since he and robert would be FOURTH cousins that way and they'd have to be descended from two different earls, Robert from 2, Matthew from 3, for the relationship to be correct) so it's safe to say, WITHOUT A DOUBT, that Robert is the Sixth Earl. For my apology, check Fandyllic's page. Read the caveat clearly - absorb it, memorize it, and NEVER break it. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 00:29, November 2, 2012 (UTC) Apology I, HarryPotterRules1, apologise for the threat I made to you on the page of Hugh MacClare, Marquess of Flintshire, and promise that I will not make any more threats to you. Don't make me regret it. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:35, November 7, 2012 (UTC) :It's a start. Well done (except maybe for the last part). -- Fandyllic (talk · ) 6 Nov 2012 5:46 PM Pacific :The last part wasn't a warning; I was merely saying that I didn't want to regret apologising to CestWhat if he's going to ignore me/be the way he used to be without changing. If so, then there's no point in me apologising, is there? HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 05:52, November 7, 2012 (UTC) ::I didn't specifically characterize he last part, that is all you. You must admit, it wasn't the kindest apology you could have made. Like I said, it's a start. This isn't as bad as the Syrian civil war. ::Now the onus is on CestWhat to apologize in return. -- Fandyllic (talk · ) 7 Nov 2012 11:19 AM Pacific Butting in Sorry to butt in, but this comes across as a very reluctant apology given only because you have been made to. The 'point' to apologising, as you put it, should be that you are genuinly sorry for what you did and see that it was wrong. Also, "Don't make me regret it" comes across as another threat - albeit not as serious as the previous one. The fact that in other places you've admitted that you think the threat was the only thing you could have done and that you think it worked gives me serious doubts that you should be allowed to continue on this site. Threats of this type should be met with an imediate ban imo and I'm quite frankly very suprised that you've been allowed to stay if you make an apology. This is hardly the type of thing likely to encourage other users to stay around - I don't care what the other person did - threats are not the correct way to resolve disputes. Not ever. I also saw a reply from you recently wishing everyone would rot in hell - which you later removed - and threatening to leave the site. You are a childish and unstable person unsuitable to be contributing to this site. 12:33, November 7, 2012 (UTC) This the section I am talking about where HarryPotterRules1 wishes everyone would rot in hell: http://downtonabbey.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Fandyllic?diff=prev&oldid=14969 -- 12:48, November 7, 2012 (UTC) :Your points would have more weight if they weren't made anonymously. I don't completely disagree, but my general philosophy is to try to reform an active contributor rather than ban them and make reform highly unlikely. -- Fandyllic (talk · ) 7 Nov 2012 11:19 AM Pacific This is not to you, Fandyllic, ignore this, but to the anonymous person, I can safely say that since you're being anonymous, you are a) a coward, b) your opinion means nothing and c) you have no right to scold me - only Fandyllic has that right. That is my opinion of you. I have apologised, now I await a reply. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:04, November 7, 2012 (UTC) Earls of Grantham CestWhat, I want you to listen to me very carefully and take a very careful look at the chart on this page here under the heading "Relationship charts": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin In 3.01 Matthew said that his great-great grandfather was the younger son of the 3rd Earl, so he (Matthew) is the 3rd Earl's great-great-great grandson. According to the chart I mentioned in the link above, if an ancestor is someone's great-great-great grandparent and another persons great-great grandparent, then they are third cousins once removed, as Matthew and Robert are. So Robert is the great-great grandson of the 3rd Earl; the recently released Chronicles of Downton Abbey book states that Robert is the 7th Earl, so there are 3 Earls between him and the 3rd. I am well aware that sometimes title pass sideways in a generation instead of down, and it could be possible here, but in the absence of any hard edvidence to the contrary, it seems more likely that the title did descend as HPR suggested: from father to son. So please, stop attacking HPR over this and learn to use some outside material to help fill in the blanks, instead of relying strictly on the episode dialogue! Thank you. Dragonrider2 (talk) 22:06, November 18, 2012 (UTC) Thank you - as I've said, based on the relationship we know them to have, it's fairly certain that it DID pass from father to son. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:57, November 18, 2012 (UTC) Still expecting an apology over our argument. I've apologised - Fandyllic says you need to apologise too (see the apology section above) - you haven't yet. I'm still expecting it. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 22:59, November 18, 2012 (UTC) :Yes, you need to apologize to HarryPotterRules1 as well. I've given you almost a month, which is more than fair. HarryPotterRules1 has been alot better about demonstrating understanding about citations, references, and sources. Now it's you turn to acknowledge the improvement. -- Fandyllic (talk · ) 16 Dec 2012 4:48 PM Pacific :::While I admit, I do still make the occasional error with citations, references and sources (btw, Fandyllic could you add citations to Banning; I'm not sure what it needs), so I usually ask Fandyllic first before I put the references in. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 02:28, December 17, 2012 (UTC) Gordon Since you're utterly f***ing incapable of using your brain to see that the information I am adding to the Gordon page SHOULD be there, I will confront you here, where everyone can see your dumbness. Robert has one uncle - we know this as Matthew is the next heir - so there was only James Crawley's father, James and then Patrick to be heirs: James's father married A woman, who then became Robert's aunt; thus, the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY that Gordon could be an uncle of Robert is through marriage to one of Violet's siblings. Whether this is Roberta, or not, is unknown, but whatever the case, Mr Gordon married an aunt of Roberts in the 1860s and never met Robert as Robert "discovered an aunt in the 1860s who MARRIED A GORDON" meaning that the two had NEVER MET. As your immense idiocy means that you cannot see past the end of your own nose, I have had no choice but to confront you here to stop you from removing information that is known. Now, if it happens again, I ''WILL ''go absolutely ape-shit, whether you like it or not. Do remember, I ''AM ''a member of this wiki, just as much as you are. Thank you HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:57, December 27, 2012 (UTC) When tagging minor characters articles for deletion Please do not remove any other content from a minor character article when tagging it with . This will only make it harder to transfer info to the List of minor off screen characters page. -- Fandyllic (talk · ) 27 Dec 2012 7:48 PM Pacific Please stop removing HPR1's content... ...and instead move it to a "Notes" section. You may think you are right, but you're just as bad as HPR1 in your own way. Edit warring is still edit warring. -- Fandyllic (talk · ) 28 Dec 2012 8:54 AM Pacific CestWhat, please see this section, as the above section - and Fandyllic's words - puts you in the wrong for removing my information and I would hate for you to get into trouble over it: I don't want your actions to get your permanently kicked off of the site, which, if they kep going, will do. You're only a step behind me for a block, so it can happen. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 23:12, January 7, 2013 (UTC) Apology 2 I apologise for threatening to "smack the crap" out of you. I'm not sure you deserve this apology, as I have known you long enough to know that you will ''change information that is valid and from valid sources again and I know that you ''will assume that you are right and start another ''edit war when ''you are wrong, but I am apologising. Don't make me have to apologise again. Next time, just wait until the admin has decided or discuss it on my page and change it after the admin has decided, ok? (You say "No" and I retract this apology). Good. Yours "The-One-Who-Is-Not-Sure-You-Deserve-This-Apology" HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:02, January 8, 2013 (UTC) :CestWhat, please mention your reversions of HarryPotterRules1's edits on my talk page before you do them. Your actions are exacerbating an already bad situation. -- Fandyllic (talk · ) 7 Jan 2013 5:12 PM Pacific :He won't. If you look at the section directly above this, I did ask him to see that one, in which you said don't remove them, stick them in notes. He DIDN'T read it, and totally ignored it. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:16, January 8, 2013 (UTC) You're facing a ban also I asked you not to continue reverting HPR1's changes and you keep doing it en-masse. If I look at your last 20 or so contributions except for forum edits, they are all negative. A contributor is not someone who goes around just reverting other people's edits. I give you about 10 more edits to clean up your act or you're facing a 1 week ban. If you're worried about HPR1 gloating, I will ban him (with a warning) for a week also, if he gloats. Don't think you're out of the woods because HPR1 is still screwing up. -- Fandyllic (talk · ) 7 Jan 2013 5:19 PM Pacific Thank you Fandyllic, though I think he deserves more than a week, as he's been doing this and getting increasingly worse, since I arrived on this wiki. HarryPotterRules1 (talk) 01:25, January 8, 2013 (UTC) Enough CestWhat complained to me about the situation here on my central talk page. After reading various talk pages, edit histories, etc. here is my response. I have blocked both CestWhat and HPR1 for 3 days for fighting. You both need to cool down. When you return, I expect you both to stop arguing. CestWhat -- the next time you revert one of HPR1's edits for any reason you will be blocked again. If you have an issue with one of his edits you need to talk to Fandyllic and he can undo or fix it as needed. If HPR1 writes that Cora went to Jupiter you will leave it until somebody else can fix it. HPR1 -- the next time you talk about hitting people or otherwise threaten anybody you will be blocked again. Reconsider what you have said each time before you click publish. Is that very clear? Fandyllic, I apologize for stepping in like this. You have amazing patience. -- Wendy (talk) 02:44, January 10, 2013 (UTC) Dear Cestwhat Please except my apologies for accusing you like that. and i have full support of you becoming Admin of the beutifully designed and made wiki Kind Regard hbellamy 09:35, January 14, 2013 (UTC)